I think the Flames moving were more of a relocation than trying to get out of Atlanta, because they were quickly replaced. The idea behind the Thrashers is that all of the Northern people that have moved to the Atlanta area (there are a TON) would want to watch the games. The big mistake is that they played at a location downtown that was harder to access for most of the demographic that they were trying to reach. An arena in the north of the city would have worked fine. (One currently would bring the Hawks a Ton of attendance as well). The only reason for a lot of people to watch the games would be if their favorite northern team was playing the thrashers. For example, the Red Wings game every year, there was A LOT of red in the building, and most of them were from the Atlanta area. I think hockey can exist in Atlanta, just depends on the success of the team, and the location of the arena.

The big mistake is that they played at a location downtown that was harder to access for most of the demographic that they were trying to reach. An arena in the north of the city would have worked fine.

I'm skeptical of the idea that the Thrashers' problems came down to a poorly-located arena. If you're a diehard, you'll find a way to go to the games. I'd bet that the average Red Wing fan has a drive of at least 30 minutes to get to the Joe (it's an overwhelmingly suburban fanbase), but they deal.

I think Atlanta is just like a lot of Sun Belt cities - it's hard to sell a cold-weather sport to an area that doesn't get that cold.

I sort of agree but would like to point out that Atlanta has entirely different traffic dynamic than Detroit does. People in Atlanta try to avoid dealing with it if at all possible. Once they've gone downtown for their workday, they don't want to go back. And I would very much doubt the "at least 30 minutes" figure for Detroit. It definitely doesn't take half an hour to get downtown from Downriver or Macomb County. The average fan probably has a 20-minute drive.

Diehard fans I agree with; clearly the Thrashers never had many. But it's a little unfair when they'd been in town for 12 years and the Wings have been around for four or five generations. Atlanta's not a real great sports town due to all the imports, but a team needs a little time to take root. As in, kids have to grow up with the team, which means you need a lot longer than what the Thrashers had.

You hit the nail right on the head. The traffic flow is crazy. That is why the minor league hockey team (Gwinnett gladiators) has found reletavily good attendence because the arena is well north of the city. The diehards will do anything to attend the games- the thing that the Thrashers always lacked was that steady stream of parents taking their kids to the game that you see at other games. It just wasn't ever there for the thrashers. It makes we wonder how teams could be successful in Nashville and Tampa, but never in Atlanta, which kills those two population wise.

In Atlanta you are starting to see that new generation of fans take root with regards to the Falcons and Braves, which are insanely popular right now. The city has that "buzz" around those teams if you know what I mean.

Outside of hockey, it seems like the Hawks, Falcons and Braves have also had tough times selling out consistently for 30 years. There have been some good teams playing during that timespan as well. Maybe it's been longer than that but I didn't have TBS until the mid 80s. Excuse me, WTBS.

The braves were poorly attended in the post hank Aaron and Bobby Cox era. You couldn't give tickets away. But Cox came as manager in like '87, and the Braves made the playoffs every year from I think 1990 until 2006. Braves are huge, and so are the Falcons. Sellout almost every game that isn't against Carolina. The Hawks struggle with attendance.

Like the unis for flash for a program with little history and wants to stand out ala Boise State. I know we have a traditional uniform but countless kids have said "that helmet" drew them to Michigan at first. The helmet is "flashy" (for its time) so we could have been accused of the same thing decades ago ;)

A shade or two lighter and the orange would be quite awful, very "highlighter" coloring but just evades that. (and yes I realize we have some uniforms that are walking highliters as well) A bit brighter than the Begnals unis but the obvious different being the same colored pants versus black.

Did Nike really do the logo? Or was that an internal thing - it looks silly, like a beaver pug :)

I don't think Nike can change the school's logo without permission, but remember the MSU logo debacle a couple years back? I think that designers from Nike collaborate with the schools on issues like the logo.

It's squeeze and it makes the logo look even worse. If you shrink the picture and allow it to stretch like it should it looks a LITTLE better. Still sucks, but it doesn't look taller than it does wide.

Wow, you really don't like these uniforms. I as well as most of the board think they're not that bad. Plus, I pulled up the link to see a larger picture of the face mask and must say I think that it's a cool touch.

I'm going to reserve judgement until I see them on the field. I thought Missouris new unis looked okay when they did the highly edited press release photos, then I saw them on the field and thought they looked ridiculous.

Perhaps you need to learn your history. They started playing football only 14 years after Michigan in 1893. They have the 7th oldest college rivarly in football against Oregon in "The Civil War". To say they have no history or tradition... you sir need to get off your high horse.

Most D-1 teams started playing football in the early 1900s. When someone says a school has "no tradition," that is usually taken to mean that they have never been consistently competitive and relevant, rather than to mean that they literally have not been around for very long.

Oregon State had a grand total of three top-10 seasons prior to 2000 and has only won one Rose Bowl (in 1941). Saying they have a football tradition is like saying Temple has a football tradition.

They're generically terrible, but nothing appreciably worse than what Nike-das churns out on average. At least Oregon State is not wearing Zanga jams, and as we all well know they will never ever be the ugliest or most odious OSU in the country no matter what they wear.

I honestly think those don't look half bad. They look a little better than having that old cartoonish beaver logo. Not sure why everyone is up in arms about this. I get it with Michigan changes since we have a deep tradition with regards to our uniforms. But Oregon State doesn't exactly have much in the way of tradition, or really even an identity. They got to do something to keep recruits interested.

BEAVER LOGO
The State of Oregon is known as The Beaver State. The beaver is the official state animal of Oregon, and it appears on the state flag. Oregon State is the only Division I Athletics program in the country with the beaver as its mascot, making this a point of distinction for our athletic teams.

The beaver logo is concise and iconic, with no extraneous elements. The mark is strong, innovative and tenacious, accurately reflecting the spirit of Oregon State University Athletics and expressing our position with purpose and conviction.

The shape of the logo is deliberate and fast, capitalizing on the unique shape of the animal's head. Careful consideration was given to the unique elements of the beaver, such as its powerful, iconic teeth, and its smoothly swept back fur coat. <--- Less carefully considered: the logo's accidental resemblance to a saber-toothed tiger.

PRIMARY COLORS (Orange and Black)
The colors we choose-as well as how those colors are combined with other design elements-work together to create a unique and compelling set of brand expressions. A consistent Oregon State color palette allows for instant team identification.

The official colors for Oregon State University Athletics remain Orange and Black. Orange elicits a strong emotional response, symbolizing rejuvenation and enthusiasm. The color black is authoritative and powerful.

SECONDARY COLOR (Metallic Bronze)
A metallic bronze secondary color has been introduced as a nod to the importance of forestry in Oregon's history. Symbolically, bronze represents strength and integrity, and draws inspiration from the well-used machinery utilized throughout the timber industry. The addition of bronze brings depth to the existing Oregon State color palette, and is reserved for limited use only. <----- Whaaaaaat?

CUSTOM DISPLAY TYPEPFACE and NUMERAL SET (Beaver Bold)
To assist in creating a consistent look for a wide variety of athletic communications, a custom display typeface and numeral set has been designed as an enhancement to the overall identity.

Strong block typography is an essential component of the Oregon State Athletics heritage. It speaks to the no-nonsense, hard-working nature of student-athletes, coaches and fans. It is honest, stable and imposing.

WORDMARKS (Oregon State, Beavers)
The wordmarks are bold graphic treatments that create a clear, consistent and visually memorable identity. The Oregon State and Beavers wordmarks capture the essence of the Athletics brand.

The wordmarks work closely in support of the primary identity, and a traditional collegiate lettering style inspires these unique letterforms. These elements create a powerful, exclusive look that distinguishes the wordmarks from other institutions. <--- Different from those fifty other schools that use collegiate block lettering?

BEAVERS SCRIPT
The Beavers script was designed as a nod to the heritage of Oregon State Athletics. Inspired by the fluid stroke of handwriting, the script is a modern rendition of a classic look. The varied width of the lettering creates movement in the script, drawing the viewer's eye through the mark.

TARTAN PRINT
Historically, tartan prints have been worn in battle for hundreds of years. A custom tartan print has been designed to represent the Oregon State Beavers and enrich the overall identity package. The notches in the thick lines reference how beavers use their sharp front teeth to cut down trees, and the white pin stripes are comprised of the Oregon State and Beavers wordmarks. The tartan is reserved for limited use only. <------ Because when I think tartan prints, I think beavers. Unless it's true what they don't wear beneath the kilt

Not quite sure about the new logo, but the uniforms themselves don't look that bad. I thought Nike did a nice job with the black uniforms. I'm not crazy about the color orange, so maybe that taints my perspective, but even those aren't appalling.

Everyone who's seen me post knows that I hate uniformzz to hell and mock the shit out of them whenever I get the chance. And these actually look pretty good. Nothing wrong with the new logo. It's an improvement over the old. I don't like the multicolored facemasks and I'm very much afraid they'll become the new thing (and I've always disliked the idea of having multiple helmets) but the football uniform looks good. It's not festooned with idiotic stripes all over the place in places where stripes look stupid. In fact the design elements are pretty understated and respectable-looking. The basketball unis look good too. This isn't a mutilation, it's an overall improvement. It's a hell of a lot better than the sports bra they had a few years ago.

Oregon State worked with Nike's Graphic Identity Group (GIG) program over the last two years to develop the identity system. The GIG program chooses four universities each year and has completed recent projects with Arizona State, Missouri, Washington State and Duke. In return for the design work, Nike will be able to use the Beaver logo exclusively on headwear, footwear and apparel for a two-year period in retail.

Seriously, though, how much *did* it cost? Not that I care, but I love how they weasel (beaver?) out of answering a self-imposed question on their own gurdarned FAQ.

that the cost to the university was free, based on where it says "in return for the design work..." it makes it sound like the cost to the university is nothing, as long as Nike gets exclusive rights to use that logo exclusively so it can't be used by any other apparel manufacturer for 2 years.

Also, I will say that however overwrought the design statement was, it still makes me 100% more confident in Nike as opposed to Adidas in coming up with a coherent and attractive logo and brand 'look', I mean.... Bleed-outs, sleeves and Zangas, yo.

The uniforms don't look bad but they do look generic. They remind me of every other uniform re-design that has come out in the last few years. Those jerseys could be intended for Clemson or any other school with orange as a primary color. The uniforms are bland and not memorable but otherwise not offensive.

But the written explanations for the use of the bronze and the tartan pattern are perfect examples of complete babbling nonsensical horseshit in the service of justifying something the designers just wanted to do cuz they felt like it. It's undoubtedly the first time in human history that the color bronze is claimed to be representative of the industry of growing and felling big green plants.

C'mon Oregon State should've done this a decade ago. Sure the logo sucks, but the uni's aren't that bad. And when was the last time you put the words Oregon, State, and football in the same sentence when OU wasn't paying a state school?

I was actually at the rebranding ceremony tonight in Corvallis because I work at OSU (not that OSU). I like the new look personally. Not something I'd want Michigan to do obviously. But for the Beavs I think it works.

Logo isn't great but the uniforms are fine. When your main rival is Oregon you need flashy new things to compete. Can not really compete with facilities so might as well get cool new uniforms and highlight the fact your logo is a Beaver.

Here are all three together (I think there were only three anyway), for the board's perusal:

I have to say, none of them are really that bad overall (I think I like the mostly black version the best), especially since they seem to be honest with themselves about the reason for the rebranding. As Coach Riley apparently tweeted:

Those will definitely look better when they don't go all monochrome. There is no football team anywhere that should wear orange jerseys and orange pants.

Also I think it's funny that the real-life model players are adopting the "I'm a fukkin warriorzz" pose that Nike and adidas always put their computer generated models in. Reminds me of my ROTC days when a fellow middie was standing at attention with his elbows way out in what he thought was a "Marine-style" pose and a drill sergeant snapped at him to "do it right, your lats aren't that fuckin' big."

Some people just hate uniform changes. Just because most of ours look terrible and our uniform is iconic doesn't mean every change for every team should be met with criticism. I thnk they look great and don't change too much.

I have no issues with the way Adidas has done Michigan's uniforms. In my opinion the trademark of the athletic teams has been and will always be the winged helmet. As long as that stays true then I don't really care how the shirts or pants look. I may get blasted for this, but I kind of liked the matte finished helmets in the bowl game. Keep the numbers off though. That's my 2 cents.

Personally, I like them. Also, this isn't Nike's doing, it's obviously a rebranding attempt by OSU. It's not like Nike said "we're going to completely rebrand Oregon State and there's nothing they can do about it!"

As much as people want to bitch and moan about uniforms, it seems like this trend is here to stay regardless of the brand. I personally think Nike products in general are better than Adidas products, but to each their own. Not everyone has to agree with me. I will say that as much crap as the "bleed out" jersey's got, they were the first Adidas product that I actually liked. Plus look at the MSU game. The student section was game for the Maize out for once, and it looked pretty bad ass with the bleed out jerseys.